A NEW programme to stop the spread of Aids and other sexually-transmitted infections (STI) among youth here is being drawn up by the authorities — but what is different this time is that the programme is specifically targetted at students in the Normal stream, who have been identified by counsellors working with youth as being at “high risk” of contracting such diseases.
“The high risk group are the normal students. I can identify that,” said Ms Sheena Jebal, the chief executive and founder of NuLife Care and Counselling ~ Today Online
I'm wondering how Ms. Jebal concluded that Normal stream students constitute the high risk group. Did she base it on her experience counselling young people who have contracted STD? Or maybe she had proper statistical evidence to back up her conclusion?
Whatever it is, I hope that people will NOT think that Normal stream = less academically inclined = delinquents = promiscuous = high risk of contracting AIDs. AIDs is NOT a problem of how academically-inclined people are. AIDs is partly a social problem in that it has to do with values and morals. And we know that one's moral standing is NOT dependent on which academic stream one is in. Being in the Normal stream does NOT mean that these students lack strong moral fibre. It does NOT mean they are promiscuous. It does NOT mean their values system is lacking. Neither does being in the Special or Express stream necessarily mean that you have a superior values system. Hence it does NOT necessarily mean that Special and Express stream students would have a stronger values system and be less promiscuous and be less likely to contract AIDs.
7 comments:
Let's face it- the Normal stream students do experience a higher level of STI and sexually transmitted diseases. Reports from the clinics have shown that there in strong correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and this particular cohort.
I am not saying that higher educated students dont catch STIs. They do. I am not saying that all normal stream students catch STIs either. But looking at statistics, a large percentage o at risk cases com from the normal stream. Now, one can be politically correct and skirt the issue, or whack the nail on the head with strong decisive action. If you have a large group of students from one class not submitting the homework, you send in the PM Committee for hard action. You have a particular group of students in an academic stream that is experiencing higher reported cases of STIs, you take action.
I dont think the article links it to just education. I personally think its the same factors that drive these kids to under-perform (but then is being normal under-performing?)that contribute to the higher level of STIs. In other words, the kids get STIs not because they are in Normal stream, but because of the family, home, peer environment that pushes them to experiment at a young age.
Something to think about. Think deeper structural issues.
Considering that Normal stream students are already heavily stereotyped for being in the normal stream, this would give them more areas to be frowned upon for. The good kids, like those who don't act out, in normal stream would not only be subjected to criticisms because of their bad results, but also for the fact that they experience a higher level of STI and sexually transmitted diseases.
I pity these few students, who would probably have to live the teenage part of their lives in shame when even though students in other streams may have worst results, have worst behaviours and well, catch more STIs.
Is this fair?
I tend to agree with Gabriel. These Normal stream students have been stereotyped and now categorising them as high-risk STD targets may only cause further stereotyping.
Yes, the article did mention that family background is a consideration - how parents have no time to speak to children about such taboo subjects. MANY Special/Express stream students also have parents who are too busy for them. So the high-risk group perhaps should NOT be just Normal Stream students.
My argument is not meant to be politically correct or skirting the issue as Mr Jermey Wrong suggests. Rather, the causes for the rise of STD is complex as Mr Wrong himself has admitted. Hence, categorising Normal stream kids as high-risk may give some people the wrong impression of this complex issue.
I guess my concern is the way the whole issue is approached. It could have been done in a way as not to worsen the 'stigma' of being a Normal stream kid. There are high-risk groups in every streams. Maybe, the high-risk group should be specific targets in Special AND Express AND Normal streams.
Sigh. Since we insist on 2 sided answers from all of you, I too have to give my 2 cents worth of 2 sides.
I agree with pensive and Gabriel: it is not nice and insensitive to stereotype people unless we can be sure every single person in that group is guilty of that charge. It really aint fair to those who are innocent to tagged and labelled as such.
I disagree with pensive and Gabriel, hence agreeing with Jeremy Wrong that if the problem is such, we should not skirt it. We must address it so that it can be solved.
Perhaps the middle ground solution is to address the issue without openly/ publicly identifying the target group involved. In other words, let the affected people (e.g. teachers, parents, SDT doctors ...etc) know so that they can take action. All other people who are not related to these kids need not know so that they do not need to join the high handed judgement seat.
How about that?
I agree with Pandora's Box :) I'm all for addressing the problem; just do it in a more sensitive and less over-generalized manner. 1 way is to address the problem without publicly identifying the target group...
First off, I believe that marking out a certain group of people as high risk is clearly stereotyping.
However, if I were to ask you to describe and picture a pregnant teen with an STI, do you dare say that you will not picture someone who is either Malay or from a broken home? ( I'm not racial profiling here. Really. ) I feel that this organization is taking a more 'in-you-face' approach. And somehow, it works. I'm sure that those gory pictures on cigarette boxes have scared a good number out of smoking. Some of you might be in denial, but STIs among teens is indeed a bigger problem.
With this approach, yes, there might increase the stereotype against normal stream students. But wait a minute, isn't there already one? What Ms. Jebal is saying is something that is merely in the back of our heads. ( Don't lie. ) Something that no one dares to say out loud for fear of a backlash.
A certain teacher once caught us using the in class computer and when we told the teacher that we were only trying to find out if our exam results, the teacher sneered and remarked in disbelief that pupils from a tier-end class like mine would be interested in our results.
Wait, isn't that the same? Isn't that an unspoken stereotype which is in everyone's minds? And, that teacher, making that remark, made me somehow what work harder, trying to make a point that tier-end classes are indeed capable of scoring.
You see, I support Ms, Jebal. Lets picture this. I am a normal stream student. I get singled out as someone with the potential to contract a STI. After hearing that, I don't think I would actually ignore that and go ahead and, -ahem-, you know.
I'm not saying that stereotyping is good, neither am I saying that it works as a scare tactic. All I am saying is there is too much backlash about the comments, and that stereotyping should only be used as a last resort of sorts. Sure, there might be many other factors included, but much of the criticism is direct at the blunt accusation of normal stream students by Ms. Jebal.
Just my two cents.
- Ernest 4K
Hi Ernest,
Interesting comments! :) To address some of the points... When I picture a pregnant teen, I seriously don't think of her as a Malay or someone from a broken family... Heh all I see is a bulging tummy :P Seriously.
You are right in saying that there's been a great deal of stereotyping going on already. I guess my point was that if we should try not to reinforce the sterotypical image of Normal stream students.
You said in your comment, "much of the criticism is direct at the blunt accusation of normal stream students by Ms. Jebal". I guess that happens to be the point that kind of like got people uncomfortable since it MIGHT end up reinforcing unwanted sterotyping.
& you know what, your response to that teacher who suggested that tail-end students are not interested in results is probably the response that teacher is hoping to get out of you.
He or she might be sarcastic. But it may not be because he or she has condemned you guys. It could out of exasperation with students not meeting expectations. I mean, there ARE many who aren't putting in enough effort yah? Or maybe you guys think you have put in effort but perhaps from teachers' perspective, it is still not sufficient. His or her sarcastic comment might be (1) due to exasperation with some students in your class not studying hard enough and probably that means they aren't concerned ENOUGH with grades, or (2) to spur you guys on? Hmm... hopefully I wasn't that teacher who made that comment and upset you! If I did, sorry!
I don't doubt your class's ability to score. You guys will score IF you all REMEMBER what is being taught and APPLY it.
Post a Comment